Louise Prew.
Last recorded decision Oct 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 85% across 145 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Hackney reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Prew's town-centre change-of-use cases work through the specific DM9 frontage-percentage test numerically (counting current retail units in the frontage), and her design sections separately state that a change-of-use application with NO physical alterations raises no design issue at all, rather than assessing design generically regardless.
· counts the actual number/percentage of retail units in a shopping frontage against the DM9 threshold rather than a general town-centre statement
· explicitly states when a change-of-use application involves no external alterations and therefore raises no design consideration at all
· notes when a use will make use of an EXISTING approved facility (e.g. a waste store) from a related permission rather than requiring a new one
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the actual count/percentage of retail units within a designated shopping frontage measured against the DM9 threshold
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a change-of-use application proposes any external alterations at all — if none, design is stated as a non-issue rather than assessed generically
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposal can rely on an existing approved facility from a related permission rather than needing a fresh one
“DM9 requires that proposals to change the use of ground floor Class A1 retail unit will not be permitted where the proportion of A1 units in the secondary shopping frontages would fall below 50% of planning units.”
2020/0166
“This change of use application does not propose any alterations to the building. Therefore the development is acceptable in design terms as it will not have an adverse impact on the building or wider area”
2020/0166
“No. 76 is part of a wider site (76-80) which was granted planning permission in 2012. The unit will make use of the waste store within the unit to the north as per this planning permission.”
2020/0166
Measured from 126 published Hackney officer reports written by this officer, with recited policy boilerplate stripped before any counting. These describe how this officer works and writes — they are not outcome predictions. Every quote is from a named public report.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 126 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Hackney planning register and published decision notices, 2020–23. · methodology
- [2]Appeal overturn and decision-time benchmarks — Planning Inspectorate (PINS) appeal decisions and application date pairs; not yet computed per officer, shown as a dash until they are. · PINS appeals casework
- [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Hackney decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 126 published Hackney officer reports written by this officer, recited policy boilerplate stripped before counting; disposition text coded from their own reasoning with every quote machine-verified verbatim. Descriptive of how they work — not outcome predictions.